The use of Australian artists’ work in training artificial intelligence (AI) models has sparked a contentious debate over copyright laws, with the music industry warning that AI companies are pushing for legislative changes that could undermine creators' rights. The International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP), which represents major global publishers including Sony, Warner, and Universal, has asserted that AI firms have already trained their systems on Australian music, including songs by Kylie Minogue, Nick Cave, G-Flip, and Hilltop Hoods, without compensating the artists.
John Phelan, ICMP’s managing director, criticized tech companies for attempting to pressure the Australian government into relaxing copyright protections, describing the push as an effort to "legitimize larceny." According to Phelan, these firms have threatened to withhold investment if copyright laws are not altered to facilitate AI training without licensing agreements. He highlighted that Australia appears to be uniquely considering changes that other countries have rejected, with 62 nations reportedly evaluating the issue but none adopting exceptions for commercial text and data mining that would diminish exclusive rights.
Evidence provided by ICMP suggested that Google's Gemini model is capable of reproducing lyrics from Australian artists, countering claims by some in the AI industry that models do not use copyrighted Australian content due to existing laws. The ICMP also referenced a reported dataset containing more than 12 million songs sourced from YouTube, including prominent Australian musicians, raising concerns about unauthorized use of protected works.
The Australian government, meanwhile, faces calls to review its copyright framework to address these challenges. Independent senator David Pocock and other committee members have engaged in discussions about how to balance innovation with creators’ rights, although there have been allegations of internal influence in shaping the committee’s position, which have been denied by officials.
Representatives from AI companies have offered contrasting perspectives. Jeffrey Bleich, special envoy for AI firm Anthropic, said the company is not seeking to dictate terms but has communicated with the government about hurdles posed by current copyright law. Bleich emphasized the practical difficulties of obtaining licenses for the vast amounts of information on the internet used in AI training. Adam Cohen, chief of economic policy at OpenAI, referenced the fair use provisions in U.S. law as fundamental to technological advancement and highlighted existing licensing agreements between OpenAI and media organizations despite arguing such deals are not legally required.
The debate has drawn wider concern from creative industries and cultural commentators, who warn that weakening copyright protections could have broader negative implications for the arts and civil society. The discussion continues amid uncertainty over how Australia will navigate pressures from global technology firms and uphold the rights and economic interests of its creators.